RAJEEV KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37629 of 2026

Rajeev Kumar Singh
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Krishna Gopal Singh, Sudhir Kumar
                                Singh Parmar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing of summoning order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 6934 of 2021
(Dikson Agro Industries Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh), under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh.

3. All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant relate to
disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge
the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on
the basis of various complications of factual details which have been
touched upon by the learned counsel. The truthfulness and integrity of
material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and
false implication has been pleaded.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel in the light of
the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010(5) SCC 663 which
read as follows :-

     "17. In a recently published commentary, the following
     observations have been made with regard to the offence
     punishable under Section 138 of the Act [Cited from: Arun
     Mohan, Some thoughts towards law reforms on the topic of
                                                NA528 No. 37629 of 2026
                         2


Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act-Tackling an
avalanche of cases (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., 2009) at p. 5] :

     "... Unlike that for other forms of crime, the
     punishment here (in so far as the complainant is
     concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but
     is more a means to ensure payment of money. The
     complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering
     the money rather than seeing the drawer of the
     cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to
     ensure recovery. As against the accused who is
     willing to undergo a jail term, there is little
     available as remedy for the holder of the cheque.

     If we were to examine the number of complaints
     filed which were `compromised' or `settled' before
     the final judgment on one side and the cases which
     proceeded to judgment and conviction on the other,
     we will find that the bulk was settled and only a
     miniscule number continued."

18. It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of
dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the
remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect.
There is also some support for the apprehensions raised by the
learned Attorney General that a majority of cheque bounce
cases are indeed being compromised or settled by way of
compounding, albeit during the later stages of litigation
thereby contributing to undue delay in justice delivery. The
problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly
choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute.
?....................

19. As mentioned earlier, the learned Attorney General's
submission is that in the absence of statutory guidance, parties
are choosing compounding as a method of last resort instead of
                                                        NA528 No. 37629 of 2026
                                3


     opting for it as soon as the Magistrates take cognizance of the
     complaints. One explanation for such behaviour could be that
     the accused persons are willing to take the chance of
     progressing through the various stages of litigation and then
     choose the route of settlement only when no other route
     remains. While such behaviour may be viewed as rational from
     the viewpoint of litigants, the hard facts are that the undue
     delay in opting for compounding contributes to the arrears
     pending before the courts at various levels. If the accused is
     willing to settle or compromise by way of compounding of the
     offence at a later stage of litigation, it is generally indicative of
     some merit in the complainant's case. In such cases it would be
     desirable if parties choose compounding during the earlier
     stages of litigation. If however, the accused has a valid defence
     such as a mistake, forgery or coercion among other grounds,
     then the matter can be litigated through the specified forums."

5. In view of the aforesaid, the submission made by the counsel is well
founded.

6. It is thus directed that the accused may appear before the court below
within a period of one month from today through the representing counsel
and move an application seeking compounding of offence, through
compromise. On such application being moved the concerned court may
take adequate steps in accordance with law in this regard and shall
provide further opportunity to the accused which shall not exceed a
maximum period of four months from today to make an endeavour in this
direction. Thereafter, the court shall pass necessary orders specifically
keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) within a period of five months from today.

7. If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not
conclude the proceedings against the accused and they are further
required to appear and face the trial, the court shall be at liberty to
proceed in accordance with law against the accused and take all necessary
steps and measures to procure their attendance as the law permits.
                                                                                          NA528 No. 37629 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    8. In the aforesaid period of five months or till the decision given in the
                                    light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall
                                    be adopted against the accused.

                                    9. It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be
                                    entertained if this order is not availed by the accused in the stipulated
                                    period of time.

                                    10. It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed
                                    only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s
                                    528 BNSS has been moved in this Court.

                                    11. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.



                                                                                 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Mustaqeem.




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad